| 查看: 3380 | 回复: 10 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
第一次投稿被拒了，大家帮我看看还有没有希望修改后重投。谢谢！！！！！ 已有6人参与
|
|||
|
审稿96天被拒，编辑的意思是： I am the manging editor in charge of your submission. Your paper was sent to two referees who have worked extensively on this topic. Both have now responded. As you can see from the reports, both referees felt that the paper is not rigorously written and it looks more like notes for an article than a completed paper. While Referee 1 is a little more positive, Referee 2 recommended rejection. As a result of this, I am sorry to inform you that we are unable to publish your paper. 主编所说的第一个审稿人 This paper is potentially interesting for the readers of XXXXXXXXXXX because it contains some original research. However, I have comments on five major points that I think should be clarified or improved in order to better understand the messages from the paper, namely: 1) highlighting the originality of the research; 2) the clearness of the presented methodology; 3) the data sources used for the empirical analysis; 4) the very poor quality of citations and references; 5) the quality of the English used in the paper. 这个审稿人所提的问题大多比较容易解决，后面还有大概两页的审稿意见，这里不多累述，感觉好像没有直接把我拒了。 第二个审稿人只给了短短一页的意见： This is an applied piece of research that tries to measure XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and make comparisons with other XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. To some extent, the paper is still at a preliminary stage, in what refers to the presentation and explanation of the results. On the one hand, the authors refer to different XXXXXXXXXXXXXX measurement proposals (which are not new to this paper and are not used in this paper) that are presented in a not rigorous way: - They do not use a homogeneous nomenclature when they present different “models of XXXXXXXXXX” - They give expressions for a continuous and a discrete variable in an unspecified way. - Some expressions for XXXXXXXXXXXX are not correct. - They designate XXXXXXXXXX as Di(x), where i refers to AAAAA and x to BBBBBBBBBB should not appear none of them. - They state that “the relation between AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB is like “S” shape” without stating any reference…. From the beginning the authors talk about the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX without giving any intuition of the concept until its definition in page 6. The authors should make an effort to provide the motivation of the study of XXXXXXXXXXXXX and to improve the discussion of the results, as it is very cursory in its current version. Finally, the articles mentioned through the text are not correctly referenced. In many cases the name of the author is referred together with the surname 麻烦大家帮我看一下编辑以及审稿人的态度。这篇文章花了我很多心血，我搞不清楚按审稿人意思修改以后重投还有没有希望。还应不应该投这个杂志..... |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料科学与工程339求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
材料与化工调剂一志愿大连海事085600，349
已经有9人回复
-
292求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
275求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
材料调剂
已经有11人回复
-
288求调剂 一志愿哈工大 材料与化工
已经有25人回复
-
085602化学工程268分蹲调剂
已经有4人回复
-
282求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
301求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
总分343，求生物学调剂
已经有3人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 第一篇投稿被拒，帮我看看审稿人的意见，是否可以采纳，修改重投
已经有15人回复
- 被拒了，想申诉呢，大家帮忙看看拒稿信，还有没有可能？
已经有13人回复
- 投稿有答复了，些许激动请大家帮忙看看，谢谢大家！（在13楼增加第二封审稿意见）
已经有32人回复
- 麻烦大家帮我看看这个拒稿意见怎么修改和改投，谢谢！
已经有3人回复
- 请大家帮我看看这个拒稿信。。。
已经有15人回复
- 第一次投SCI遇到了一些问题，希望大家能给予帮助，谢谢了。
已经有6人回复
- Materials Letters拒稿，帮我看看回信的意思！谢谢
已经有22人回复
- 论文被拒，大家帮忙看看没有修改后再投的可能，谢谢
已经有11人回复
- 文章被拒，请大家帮我看看拒稿信，我应该怎么办？
已经有31人回复
- 第一次投稿,评审结果出来了,大家帮我看看好吗
已经有36人回复
- 几乎要崩溃了！大家帮我看看是否有挽回的余地？谢谢了
已经有112人回复
hysafer
版主
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1042.2
- 散金: 848
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 1178
- 在线: 812.5小时
- 虫号: 965947
- 注册: 2010-03-09
- 专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域
8楼2011-02-11 17:59:08
jlu_w
专家顾问
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4077.9
- 散金: 1696
- 红花: 1
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 629
- 在线: 233.5小时
- 虫号: 1007700
- 注册: 2010-04-28
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 半导体光电子器件
2楼2011-02-11 13:39:37
3楼2011-02-11 13:43:38
jlu_w
专家顾问
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4077.9
- 散金: 1696
- 红花: 1
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 629
- 在线: 233.5小时
- 虫号: 1007700
- 注册: 2010-04-28
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 半导体光电子器件
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
|
两个审稿人都提出你的研究停留在初级阶段，头一个审稿人说的客气些，觉得有潜在的讨论价值，就是说如果写的好可以接受。后一个直接指出你的讨论不够深刻，最后还说The authors should make an effort to provide the motivation of the study of XXXX and to improve the discussion of the results, as it is very。。。 个人觉得还是换一个期刊吧，编辑很少有不赞同审稿人的。另外现在的期刊很注重理论支持之下，讨论的创新和深入，文章怎么写还是很难的。。。好好看看第二个审稿人的意见，再看几篇文献，如果能前面指出很好的应用前景，后面独到的深入讨论一下原理性的东西，下次就能高中啦，祝福楼主！ |
4楼2011-02-11 14:27:59
